Mr. Speaker, the member opposite made a number of statements that are designed to mislead the Canadian population, carefully chosen words such as “cash” for access, which he used 10 times. “Cash” speaks to anonymity, criminality, and envelopes full of money. They know full well there is no cash for access. There is no cash used.

I have a simple question, which I doubt will be answered with a yes or no. Does the member have any knowledge of any member here accepting cash, not a cheque, not a credit card, but cash, which he used nine times to be precise. Does he have knowledge of any member accepting cash, yes or no?

No, Mr. Speaker, that is a term of art, the hon. member knows that. Please amend the Hansard so that I said “pay to play”, rather than “cash for access”, if it makes the hon. member feel better.

The point, and what people watching at home should know, is that the Liberal Party created a system where it was expected, in order to get access to high-ranking individuals in the Liberal Party and the Liberal government, an individual had to write a cheque, use their credit card, or whatever. That is pay to play. If the hon. member does not want me to use “cash for access”, I will use “pay to play”.

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague has such a good grasp of the financial system and tax credits, I have a question for him.

Any time people pay to have access to a minister or the Prime Minister, not only does this raise an ethical problem, but it also ends up costing all Canadian taxpayers. Those people are already wealthy enough, so they will receive the full tax credit of about $600. Meanwhile, if poorer Canadians who earn $15,000 or $20,000 somehow managed to shell out $1,500 to gain access to a minister, they would not get a tax credit because they do not earn enough money. Thus, there would be no point.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague. This is not only about the effectiveness of our democratic system, but also about taxpayers.

Of course we have a system that allows people who can take part in political fundraising activities to receive some compensation.

An individual can get a tax receipt.

The hon. member is quite correct. This is not just a question of the efficiency and efficacy of a democratic process. It is also a question for every taxpayer in this country. Do they want a system created where pay to play is sanctified in the bill?

Mr. Speaker, the member made a statement that was patently untrue. Can we call it out? He has made a patently untrue statement that the donations to the Conservative Party are smaller on average than the donations to the Liberal Party. This is patently untrue. Can he retract it, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka for adding to the debate. We have had some excellent speeches from both of the parties on the opposition benches this morning. We have heard how attendees at cash for access fundraisers have actually boasted publicly about the access they gained and about how that managed to smooth the wheels of getting what they wanted from the government. I thank the member for his contribution in establishing the difference between raising money, which of course all parties do, and trading and exchanging payment for access from people with vested interests in the government, people who have business and are carrying on business with the government, paying secretly to see the government.

I would like the member to comment on the absurd irony of this debate, where the government has introduced a bill it claims would enhance openness and transparency, in response to its own secretive and opaque practices, and then claiming virtue for doing so.

Mr. Speaker, the member has hit the nail on the head. That is what is so bizarre about this debate. First we had multiple scandals involving Liberal governments across the land and their cash for access regimes. We had a scandal here, and the answer to the scandal was supposed to be this bill, Bill C-50, which would actually just rinse and repeat what was going on before, under the sheen of political legitimacy through an act of Parliament. I would suggest for my friends and hon. members around this House that we not buy into that logic, because what it actually does is offend the nature of democracy and parliamentary democracy and, indeed, means that this kind of behaviour will be sanctified and repeated in the future.

Adam VaughanLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families

Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka list the virtues of the behaviour of his party. I would like him to reflect and answer a couple of questions about the Toronto port authority, an agency that the former government and the party opposite has spent no shortage of time prosecuting its case for a business change to the model.

The Toronto port authority is composed of the following people. There is the outgoing chair, about whom in the last term of Parliament we raised the issue that as a government council appointee he made illegal donations to the Conservative Party after being appointed. That was dismissed as being a constitutional right that people have, to make donations after getting appointed. That was Mark McQueen, who subsequently threatened to sue us for raising the issue. That board also included Mark Curry, a former adviser to the Harris government and someone who has donated to the Conservative Party. Sean Morley also was a policy adviser to the Harris government, but also happened to be the official agent for Jim Flaherty's wife in her leadership campaign bid while Mr. Flaherty was the minister responsible for Toronto. It also included Jeremy Adams, known here as a tobacco lobbyist, but actually somebody who was also the campaign manager to Jim Flaherty while Jim Flaherty was the minister responsible for Toronto and the person recommending these appointments. It also included the past president of the Albany Club, Amanda Walton, another Conservative donor. However, the most interesting person appointed to the port authority in the last term was the chair, Robert Poirier, who hosted an $1,100 cash for access event for the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka while he was the minister of transport; $1,100 per person at the Albany Club while he was the industry minister.

All of these Conservative appointees with direct ties to ministers, to ministers' campaigns, and to ministers' fundraising campaigns were appointed to the port authority. Is that the level of virtue we are supposed to attain as a party?

Mr. Speaker, I live in Port Sydney; that is the port I know best. I do not know anything about the Toronto port.

I can say that I never had an $1,100 fundraiser. Maybe the member is referring to the time when I was minister of transportation. That was in 1997, so I am not sure how relevant that is to the previous PC government. If the hon. member wants to dredge that up, he can be my guest, but we are talking about Bill C-50 and the fact that the Liberal government is trying to say everyone is as bad as the Liberals are. Their number one argument for passing the bill is that everyone is as bad as they are, which patently we are not.

Before we go on to the next speaker, I just want to remind members that I am trying to listen. It is very interesting to hear what the hon. members have to say, but it is very difficult to hear with all the shouting going on. I kind of envy the folks at home, because there is a microphone and they just hear the speech; they do not get to hear the clatter back and forth.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this important debate. We are debating Bill C-50, a government bill, which in my judgment aims to whitewash the government's record when it comes to what we have been calling cash for access fundraising, and to put in place a system that sort of regularizes and normalizes this process.

Obviously we in the opposition are very concerned about that. We are very opposed to the government's record on cash for access fundraising and the continuing inclination that it has to do this. I am proud of our team for repeatedly raising this in question period and for helping to drive the public discussion on it. The public has responded with significant concerns, which is why we now see this legislative effort on the part of the government to whitewash its record.

The idea of cash for access is quite simple to understand. It is the idea that people who do business with the government or who have specific interest in lobbying the government would pay to attend a party fundraiser in order to gain access to a minister or the prime minister, whom they are directly involved in lobbying.

It is important that we make clear distinctions here. Fundraising is a part of our political process, but in principle the expectation is that people donate to political parties or political candidates because they believe in what those parties or candidates stand for. They wish to support the activities of those parties or those candidates, and they are doing so out of conviction aligned with the objectives of the party, not out of a calculation of personal interest that involves their private lobbying activities and involves their getting access to a minister or a prime minister, so that they can lobby with the implication that they are going to have a greater influence than a member of the public would.

When Conservatives were in government, we did fundraise. We had ministers involved in fundraising, but we were very clear about the fact that ministers should not have fundraisers that include those who are directly involved in lobbying them. That was a distinction that we made, and we were consistent. There was one case, and I want to actually talk about this case because I think it is quite revealing. There was one case in which there was a problem with a Conservative fundraiser. I will read some of the article. This is from CBC, published on January 18, 2014. It involved Shelley Glover, the then-heritage minister. Here is what happened:

The federal Heritage Minister attended an event in her Saint Boniface riding on Thursday evening.

But when she got there, she learned that many of the attendees were members of Winnipeg's arts community, who have dealt with her department.

Everyone at the event made a $50 donation to attend, and one person made a $500 donation.

The problem is, under federal conflict of interest rules, cabinet ministers cannot solicit donations from anyone who has asked for money or who may ask for money from her department.

In a statement released late Friday, Mike Storeshaw, Glover's director of communications, said the minister wasn't personally involved in organizing the event.

Storeshaw said Glover has refunded the money and has written the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

He said she's instructed her electoral district association which organized the fundraiser not to hold similar events.

Here is what happened. Accidentally, somebody else organized a fundraiser for the then-heritage minister in which there ended up being members of the arts community who had lobbied her department. It was $50 to get in, and immediately the minister acknowledged the problem and refunded every single dollar. These were $50 donations. This is the one time that this happened, and immediately the error was recognized and the money was refunded.

Contrast that with the Liberal Party approach: consistent $1,500 events with people who are involved in lobbying the government, and no apologies, no refund. In fact there is consistent defence of those activities.

If we compare the record when it comes to the nature of the fundraising activities undertaken under the previous government and under the current government, there really is no comparison. In 10 years, there was one case where a mistake was made. The minister was not involved in organizing the event, and the money was refunded. It was a $50 price of admission. With the Liberal government, there are consistently $1,500 events, where people are buying access to the Prime Minister and to the ministers.

What is striking is that these are always defended. It is not a matter of something happening and people saying they recognize that this should not have happened, they will pay the money back, and they will not do it again. No, these things are being defended. That is what cash for access is, that is what the government is trying to do, and Conservatives take the position that it is not acceptable. The government should go back to something that existed under the Conservatives, which was a real clarity in the guidelines. Yes, parties can fundraise. Yes, ministers and prime ministers can attend fundraising events for which people pay to attend, but those people cannot be lobbyists or people who receive money from the government, who are paying for access to a minister whom they directly lobby. That is a very clear and easy distinction to make, and it is not one being made by this legislation.

Interestingly, this legislation completely excludes, even from reporting, events where the cost is less than $200. That would completely cut out the one event under the Conservative government, about which members of the then opposition were absolutely apoplectic and called it the end of the world as we know it.

Having explained the context, what cash for access is all about, I want to delve a little into what I think is an underlying philosophical problem with how we often approach these questions of ethics in politics. We are talking about the questions of corruption, ethics, and morality in politics. Very often we approach these discussions from the assumption of what I would call a sort of rule-based moral framework, the idea that we have to define rules that deal with every possible contingency and that is the solution, that it comes down to the rules. This bill, purportedly, was introduced because people were upset about what the Liberals did, so they have to twist and tighten the rules a bit.

This comes out of a rule-based assumption about the way morality works, and I want to posit that there is a better alternative. I think that generally a virtue-based framework for thinking about ethics is a better one and would give us the tool kit we need to effectively address some of these issues. I will provide some definition and context for this.

This idea of rule-based morality is most often associated with the enlightenment philosophical project, which is the idea that, although we recognize that we may have certain aspects of ethics and morality that are part of our culture that may come from different kinds of texts and authority, actually we need to come up with a way to codify and specifically rationalize in a narrow sense of pure reason, disconnected from authority or sentiment, come up with the basis for morality and the rules we have. This was the precursor of various moral philosophers who came out of that period, who were trying to define these very specific, narrowly reason-based concepts of moral. The big debate one will often encounter in philosophical discussions that come out of this tradition is a debate between a utilitarian school, which is all about adding up the impacts on people, and a more deontological approach to ethics or morality, which says that it is more about certain lines that we cannot cross and things we cannot do, explained in whatever way. It is not about just adding up to good or bad effects, but saying there are certain things one ought never do or ought to do in general.

In any event, these distinctions all exist within a larger framework, which is that basically it is all about the rules. Through that discussion, finer and finer distinctions are made, asking what one philosophical lens tells us about a situation. Very often, for those who have studied philosophy, we get into what are often called hard cases, the frequent discussion of a narrowing set of hard cases. It is the idea that if we do not have a clear rule to answer a hard case, then we have to invent new rules that help us explain it. One of the classic ways in which these are adjudicated are so-called trolley problems. If there is a trolley coming down a hill that could go on one of two tracks and we have to decide whether to flip the switch, knowing it would impact different people depending on where it goes, how do we make that decision, depending on the situation?

Through all of this, it is this idea that the sum total of ethical and moral conduct can and should be defined in rule form, and it can be done by anyone looking at the details in a purely rational sense without reference to sentiment or authority and then following the rules, as defined.

There are a number of problems that I think are evident with a purely rule-based approach to ethics or morality.

Fairly obvious is that if the rules are the sole basis of morals or ethics, then what is the basis for the rules? If following the rules is all that matters, then what justifies the rules as they exist? Also, a purely rule-based morality does not provide a sufficient basis for understanding the roots of moral motivation or for a discussion of moral competency—

It is really interesting, Mr. Speaker, that there is a member opposite who always shouts “Ayn Rand” at me when I talk about virtue ethics, which shows how philosophically illiterate he is that he does not understand the difference between Ayn Rand and virtue ethics. I look forward to getting into that further with the member during questions and comments.

A purely rule-based morality does not give us an adequate account of the basis for understanding moral competency. In other words, we might have the rules but we have people who are failing to live up to the rules. How do we explain the fact that some people have a greater ability to live up to those rules than others?

As I introduce some possible criticisms of a narrowly rules-based approach to morality, we need to understand that the Liberal government is not even able to follow the rules that are in front of it. This is an issue of not just a failure to align with deeper principles of ethics and morality, but a breaking of clear rules as they are laid out. That is often a product of the narrowing of questions of ethics to rules. Without a broader account of moral motivation and moral competency and where it comes from, we often see a loss of even that motivating force to follow the rules.

People have complained about cash for access, so with this legislation the government is going to change some of the rules. It does not really address the fundamental problem but it also is fundamentally missing the real problem, which is not a matter of the rules but a matter of the decisions that the government has made and a lack of ethical formation around what it ought and ought not to be doing when it comes to how it acts towards the public.

The alternative is an emphasis on virtue-based morality. Virtue-based morality or ethics highlight the importance of qualities of character. Rather than focus exclusively on narrowing sets of harder cases, one comes to a greater understanding of ethics and morality by seeking to develop particular virtues.

Acting out those virtues in different situations, intellectual as well as moral virtues, helps one to understand and know what to do in different challenging situations. This is an ancient tradition that reaches back to Aristotle and likely before, but it has had a great deal of resonance all the way up to and through modern moral philosophy. Mill's approach to this is very good as well.

Aristotle identified four cardinal virtues: prudence, courage, justice, and temperance. What is at issue here fundamentally with cash for access is not just a transgression of the rules but it is a violation of fundamental principles of justice. It is a principle of national justice that all people should have a fair and equal opportunity to influence decisions and to see decisions made that reflect notions of the common good, that reflect common interests, common values, and the common good.

When some people, because of privileged access, because of their political affiliation, because of their willingness to give money to a political party, have a preferential ability to access the government and influence government policy decision-making, then that is clearly an offence against justice. I am not defining that in a purely legal context but in a context of justice as a virtue, justice as what should be a universal value.

More than trying to find ways to change rules over and over again to tighten the screw, the Liberals need to reflect on what the objective should be, which is a society, government ministers, a government, that reflects these principles of justice. They should endeavour in their fundraising activities, as well as in all of their activities, to ensure that people have the equal ability to provide input on policies that marshal towards the common good.

Virtue is important. It is not just about a set of rules, but it is about the tone and how we shape our actions and how we make decisions. This is part of the problem with the bill. It does not address many of the fundamental issues. I would say this as well outside of the bill and outside of the specific context that we are discussing this in, because we are going to have these kinds of discussions about corruption, ethics, ethical fundraising, probably over and over again at least for the immediately foreseeable future. We need to take a step back from saying, “What are the rules?” and we need to ask what kind of a country we want to be in and what kind of conduct we expect from our ministers even when perhaps the rules are not there.

Again, the rules are clear in this case, but even when they are not clear, what kind of conduct would reasonable people, thinking from a framework that emphasizes justice, seek to see acted out?

One of the other issues I want to bring up because it has been discussed in this debate is the issue of access to the Prime Minister. Repeatedly we are hearing in questions and comments from members of the government that they have the most accessible Prime Minister in human history and that they know of people who have met him at events in their ridings. Let me say first of all, it is not at all true that any Canadian who wants to spend time with the Prime Minister can get that access. That is ridiculous to even suggest. I invite anyone watching this speech who thinks it is that easy to call the Prime Minister's Office and seek to set up a meeting.

The point is that there are different kinds of access. There can be a big public town hall in which many people come and some have an opportunity to ask questions, but that is very different from having a small, intimate cocktail reception where a small number of people have the privileged opportunity to have a detailed discussion with the Prime Minister or with a minister about the issues. Those are qualitatively, fundamentally different kinds of access. It is not the same being at a $1,500 private fundraiser with the Prime Minister as being able to ask one question in a public setting at a town hall. Those are fundamentally different kinds of access.

On the point of access, I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to invite the Prime Minister, if he wants to be accessible, to come and spend more time in my constituency. I am sure the local Liberal Party association would appreciate it as well, but I would be happy to take him on a tour of our industrial heartland. Without anyone paying $1,500, he can actually meet the workers in the energy sector that he has talked about phasing out, not the workers but the energy sector itself. He could then understand the importance in my riding of the downstream part of the energy sector, the jobs it creates, and the spinoff opportunities that are there and available for work right across the country.

So many of the products we use come from the energy sector. When we think of energy and oil sands development, most people think of driving cars and flying in airplanes, things that we all do, but they do not think of the fact that plastics, election signs, for example, come from petroleum products. There are so many things that we use on a day-to-day basis that have their basis in energy-related manufacturing, much of which happens in my riding.

I said in questions and comments that Vegreville is fairly close to my riding, so if the Prime Minister wants to be accessible to people who are losing their jobs and to a community that is going to be fundamentally damaged as a result of a decision of the government's former and present immigration ministers, then he could come to Vegreville and actually meet the people who are impacted.

I suspect that will not happen. If the Prime Minister wants to come to my riding this summer, I would be happy to make the arrangements. However, the reality of access is that if people are wealthy and well-connected Liberal Party donors, they are going to have access to the Prime Minister that the workers in Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the people in my colleague's riding in nearby Vegreville who are losing work are not going to have. Even if there were some big round-table event, even if people are able to send a tweet and hope it is seen by the Prime Minister, they are not going to have qualitatively the same kind of access as someone who is paying for it.

Canadians are frustrated by this and the bill simply does not at all address the issues that are there.

Adam VaughanLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families

Mr. Speaker, putting aside the debate about moral ethics, virtue ethics, and the sense that we can somehow promote a moral utopia by having no rules and regulations and just imply that people act in an ethical way and the challenges of that philosophical bent, as I said, I still fear the member's parents read too much Ayn Rand to him as a child at bedtime.

The issue is this. I would like the member to reflect on the port authority, again, because I did not go through the full list of Tory patronage appointments. We used to call it the “pork authority” in Toronto. The port authority also had the member for Milton run her campaign out of a federal agency, using the fax machine to solicit donations, until she was caught. That same body, which had Jim Flaherty's campaign manager, Tim Hudak's spokesperson, and the wife of Jim Flaherty's campaign manager, also hosted somebody who hosted a pay for play or cash for access, whatever the Tories want to call it, donation scheme where if people paid $1,100 per person they got to be appointed to the port authority, apparently, under their reasoning.

With all of this patronage around, the port authority of Toronto had so many Conservatives, if the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka had had that many in his campaign, he might have been on the final ballot at the leadership campaign, but he could not raise them a second time. I guess because he was out of power, he could not get them back into his fold.

The issue is this. As they run cash for access themselves, as they hand out federal appointments to campaign staff, campaign managers, campaign official agents, advisers of the Harris government, as they conduct all of that, how does that fit into his moral view of the world as being ethical?

Mr. Speaker, I always find it entertaining listening to my friend, the member for Spadina—Fort York. I will have to say his understanding of political financing in this country is about as good as his understanding of political philosophy. He would do well to actually listen to what I said earlier. Of course, I never, at any point in my speech, advocated the abolition of rules or said that there is not a place for moral rules alongside a broader framework of virtue ethics. It is interesting that he always refers to Ayn Rand. Maybe he is more familiar with those texts than I am. However, Ayn Rand was not an advocate of virtue ethics. I think he should know that. If he does not, maybe he should focus his questions in a different direction.

He said a lot about things that happened in the Toronto port authority, apparently. He repeatedly asserted the word “apparently“, “Apparently, you just had to pay this money and you got on the port authority”. I do not really think a lot of the assertions of that member are necessarily worth dignifying with a response. I would rather we talk, not about his constructed vision of “apparently”, but rather about what we know happened.

I spoke in my speech about what we know happened under the Conservative government. We had one fundraiser where it was $50 a person. It was done by mistake, without the minister's prior knowledge, all of the money was refunded, and there was proactive engagement with the Ethics Commissioner.

With the present government, we have repeated $1,500 cash for access fundraisers. There has been no recognition of how inappropriate that is, no apology, and no pullback from that. The government is proudly standing up to defend it and is now trying to enshrine cash for access in the legislation. That is not an “apparently”. That is something we know happened. Those are events that are on the record, The government, frankly, should be ashamed of them and it should be reversing course, not trying to justify them.

Mr. Speaker, it is funny to see the Liberals trying to appear less corrupt than the Conservatives. It seems as though there is a contest to see who is the least corrupt.

The member for Spadina—Fort York is trying to say that when it comes to political fundraising, the Liberals are breaking the rules, but not as much as the Conservatives. It is quite an interesting debate.

Can my colleague speak to the Liberals’ argument, which puts all members in one basket by saying that the rules are the same for everyone, that all members follow the rules, that all members must do fundraising in their ridings, and that this is part of the electoral process?

The rules or codes of conduct, ethics, and political fundraising that apply to the real decision-makers on the front bench of the Government of Canada should be quite different, since they have quite different roles than do members such as my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes an excellent point in general about the obvious reality that ministers have a different role from members of Parliament. Ministers are part of the government. They are running departments and making policy decisions in a way that we as members of the legislature are not. We are here to debate legislation, propose changes to it, and vote on it, but also to hold the government to account for the decisions it makes with respect to specific files.

The point my friend makes as well is that the government in this argument is always trying to muddy the waters a bit. Rather than responding to the issues of cash for access fundraising, it is trying to insert confusion by saying that another event might have been similar, which was probably actually different, or looking at things that are far removed from reality, trying to insert confusion into the discussion.

Instead of trying to provide clarity and answers to questions from its perspective, because it will have a different perspective, the government is trying to insert confusion in to the debate. It is like smudging dirt on the windows so we cannot see what the details are. I think the Liberals hope Canadians will give up paying attention because it is confusing, it is kind of a pox on all their houses, or whatever the case may be.

We need to search for that clarity in this debate and ask what has happened, what has the government done, and why are those things inappropriate. As I explained in my speech, quite directly and specifically, what the government has done is completely different from practices under the previous Conservative government.